135
135
Dec 27, 2012
12/12
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 135
favorite 0
quote 1
and the university of texas again claimses, well, we're just doing it the way the university of michigan law school did it, and so we're okay. there are a number of distinctions between the cases, though, that we think will help the, you know, the now-more skeptical about racial preferences court strike down tease preferences. they wouldn't have to overrule the grutter case to do so, because the grutter case justice o'connor articulated some principles that were supposed to limit the size and duration of racial preferences to avoid abuses, but she department really enforce them. -- she didn't really enforce them. but they remain on the books. you're supposed to pursue race-neutral alternatives before you resort to race. well, texas did. they have this 10% plan. they get a lot of racial diversity and other diversity from the 10% plan. did they really need to use individual racial preferences on top of it? that's one argument in her favor. another argument is the court has said no racial balancing, meaning you cannot try to mirror in your state's university's composition the racial proport
and the university of texas again claimses, well, we're just doing it the way the university of michigan law school did it, and so we're okay. there are a number of distinctions between the cases, though, that we think will help the, you know, the now-more skeptical about racial preferences court strike down tease preferences. they wouldn't have to overrule the grutter case to do so, because the grutter case justice o'connor articulated some principles that were supposed to limit the size and...
107
107
Dec 13, 2012
12/12
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 107
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> gentleman's time's expired: we now recognize the honorable gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my commendations for in this hearing. and we need to do what we are doing, and i commend you for that. these questions will be yes or no. first to chairman genachowski. mr. chairman, section 6403b of the spectrum act requires the commission to coordinate with canada and mexico when authorizing the reassignment and reallocation of beside cast frequencies -- broadcast frequencies. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, i would note that similar such coordination took place for the dtv transition and that it took a very long time. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, will the commission commit to negotiating new arrangements with the state department, canada and mexico as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the commission's notice of proposed rulemaking before repacking broadcast frequencies, yes or no? is. >> i'm not sure of that provision, but we are committed to working with canada and mexico. >> is that a yes or no? >> i'd have
. >> gentleman's time's expired: we now recognize the honorable gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my commendations for in this hearing. and we need to do what we are doing, and i commend you for that. these questions will be yes or no. first to chairman genachowski. mr. chairman, section 6403b of the spectrum act requires the commission to coordinate with canada and mexico when authorizing the reassignment and reallocation of beside...
123
123
Dec 11, 2012
12/12
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 123
favorite 0
quote 0
we've got a big obstacle in the way with lake michigan to get product to the east coast. so i recognize there's need for investment. but i often hear from my constituents the concern of the government, of the federal government picking regions of the country to win and lose in the economic battles that take place between states. in other words, if we invest a lot of money in the northeast quarter's federal taxpayer or a lot of money in california, the fax payer in -- taxpayer in wisconsin is wondering are we just making those states more competitive to compete against wisconsin manufacturing? could you talk a little bit about how the whole thing plays together and what the answer should be? >> first of all, i know you know this, but you all were in the ball game. >> yeah. i'm not making the statement on -- >> i know you're not. i'm saying if you feel your state is disadvantaged, it's not because of us. we wanted to make investments, we were ready to make investments. >> let's take it from montana. let's just take it from a different region because the broader question is
we've got a big obstacle in the way with lake michigan to get product to the east coast. so i recognize there's need for investment. but i often hear from my constituents the concern of the government, of the federal government picking regions of the country to win and lose in the economic battles that take place between states. in other words, if we invest a lot of money in the northeast quarter's federal taxpayer or a lot of money in california, the fax payer in -- taxpayer in wisconsin is...
92
92
Dec 27, 2012
12/12
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 92
favorite 0
quote 0
they saved affirmative-action in the famous case from michigan law school. case after case reject the bush administration position on guantÁnamo bay and treatment of the detainees there. so why did the court of last? well, the court move left because sandra day o'connor grew more and more alienated from the modern republican party. she didn't like john ashcroft. she did not warrant here has been connect it. she didn't like the way the war in iraq was being conducted and above all, she was alienated by something that doesn't get talked about a lot now, but the one very large in the history of our country. not just the supreme court. and this terry schiavo case. the terry schiavo case had a big impact on justice o'connor summoned the police and judicial independence, the summit dealing, although many people didn't know at the time come with dissent ever has been alzheimer's disease. the idea of medical decision-making for a critically alpert was not just an abstraction for justice o'connor. in 2005 she left the court to take care of her husband and she was re
they saved affirmative-action in the famous case from michigan law school. case after case reject the bush administration position on guantÁnamo bay and treatment of the detainees there. so why did the court of last? well, the court move left because sandra day o'connor grew more and more alienated from the modern republican party. she didn't like john ashcroft. she did not warrant here has been connect it. she didn't like the way the war in iraq was being conducted and above all, she was...